| Author |
Message |
   
Thomas
Member
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2010 - 02:05 pm: | 
|
Mohammed I have emailed Larry a few days ago and I have even posted recently on this forum but have been unable to get a hold of him. Could you forward the pamphlet to me please:
patricksdadinfrance@gmail.com
Thanks in advance and have a great day :-)
Thomas |
Thomas
Member
Post Number: 1031
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 09:07 am: |
|
> Thank you Robyn and Norm, she is correct :-) |
Creational
Member
Post Number: 410
Registered: 09-2008
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2010 - 01:47 am: |
|
Dear All,
Here is yet another interview with Stephen Hawking indicating that either knowingly or otherwise, he is following the footsteps of our one and only Billy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/10/stephen-hawking-on-religi_n_607753.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=973400,b=facebook
Stephen Hawking, known for his groundbreaking work in physics, told Diane Sawyer that when it comes to reconciling science and religion, there is only one outcome: "science will win because it works." He also elaborated on his views about God.
"What could define God [is thinking of God] as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God," Hawking told Sawyer. "They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."
When Sawyer asked if there was a way to reconcile religion and science, Hawking said, "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
Love,
Zhila,
Thank you Billy.
|
Mahigitam
Member
Post Number: 204
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2010 - 05:05 am: |
|
Did a 'sleeper' field awake to expand the universe?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627643.500-did-a-sleeper-field-awake-to-expand-the-universe.html
"IT'S the ultimate sleeper agent. An energy field lurking inactive since the big bang might now be causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate.
In the late 1990s, observations of supernovae revealed that the universe has started expanding faster and faster over the past few billion years. Einstein's equations of general relativity provide a mechanism for this phenomenon, in the form of the cosmological constant, also known as the inherent "dark energy" of space-time. If this constant has a small positive value, then it causes space-time to expand at an ever-increasing rate. However, theoretical calculations of the constant and the observed value are out of whack by about 120 orders of magnitude.
To overcome this daunting discrepancy, physicists have resorted to other explanations for the recent cosmic acceleration. One explanation is the idea that space-time is suffused with a field called quintessence. This field is scalar, meaning that at any given point in space-time it has a value, but no direction. Einstein's equations show that in the presence of a scalar field that changes very slowly, space-time will expand at an ever-increasing rate."
---------------
Is creation expanding much faster over the past few billion years?..Or is it expanding at a constant rate or with an increasing acceleration ?
In a time of universal deceit,telling the truth is a revolutionary act.- George Orwell
|
Mqhassan
Member
Post Number: 98
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 01:52 pm: |
|
Maghitam,
You have just pointed to one of the greatest enigmas of modern science.
The mass calculations for Creation, indicates that most of the mass lies in the outer shells, although it contains very fine matter from the type unknown to present science. The huge volume difference between the outer and the material belts provides an average density for the outer shells , which is in the order 10^120 less dense than the material belt. Although this is a very small number , it is NOT zero as many people expected it to be. It also happens to be the error in the "Cosmological Constant" that present Earth scientists are experiencing !
The outside larger mass seems to act as a force accelerating the material belt towards it.
That error could ONLY be explained when understanding the Plejaran explanation for Creation.The slowly changing scalar field you mentioned could also be because of the slowly changing value for the speed of light towards lower values. So somehow as the speed of light decreased at the material belt below a certain value the acceleration process began, as the outer shells stil have the C value at 147 times its current value in our material belt or shell.
Salome
Mohammed |
Thomas
Member
Post Number: 1042
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2010 - 11:14 pm: |
|
> Hi guys, I was under the impression that there is no physical mass > whatsoever in any of the belts except the material belt...right? |
Mqhassan
Member
Post Number: 99
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2010 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Thomas,
No matter how fine the energy is of the spiritual matter and the higher forces of nature, it must have an equivalent mass as E = MC^2
The fifth and sixth belts are not voids.
It is so small that it can hardly be measured,
However I think that the results obtained from my analysis is not a coincidence.
The matter density ends up being a very small 10^ 120 times less dense than the material belt, hence approximated as no existent !
However even that small amount makes up most of the mass that could practically have the effect mentioned !
Salome
Mohammed |
Thomas
Member
Post Number: 1049
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 - 10:37 pm: |
|
Hi Mohammed, as I said, there is no "mass" in the other belts if there is no physical matter so those calculations may not apply at all ;-) |
Mqhassan
Member
Post Number: 100
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 02:04 am: |
|
Thomas,
I am challenging this postulate by showing you that there is energy. This energy has a mass equivalent value. It is wrong to connect mass to our definition of physical matter in the first place, because it was even mentioned that you have seven levels of subatomic structure of which we know of two only.
Reaching the finest levels is from where you can get the very finest spiritual energy. Energy and Mass are Interchangable, so you get energy equivalent mass.
Also note that there is NO zero in the real world ! So if you have a fraction that has 120 zeros infront of it, that makes the whole thing very challenging, and capable of providing missing answers.
How do you expect Creation to go back again and contract of there was NO mass in the enormous volume ?? After all it is Gravity that will pull it back again.
Salome
Mohammed |
Thomas
Member
Post Number: 1050
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 10:42 am: |
|
> I'm just saying that spiritual energy may, and in fact, is, different than > matter and material energy thus the rules may not be the same. That's the > point I am getting at. You may be right but I wanted to point out that > there may be significant things we have no clue of. In fact that is certain > :-) |
Smukhuti
Member
Post Number: 391
Registered: 06-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 12:57 pm: |
|
In contact 224, Billy talks about Creation flakes, where at one place he mentions : "The Creation flakes, or rather the flakes that were created by the Creation and that formed in the empty space of the Universe, were hydrogen formations, in which all the building blocks or 280 elements of life as well as all matter and gases, etc., which were already created by the Creation, were existent."
Now; what are these 280 elements of life? It can't be the elements of the periodic table (or is it? Unidentified?) which are 120 odd. Any idea?
Salome.
Suv
|
Thomas
Member
Post Number: 1073
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 11:21 pm: |
|
> Yes it is exactly that as Ptaah mentioned in a previous contact report. We > have many yet to discover. |
Mqhassan
Member
Post Number: 101
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 24, 2010 - 02:32 pm: |
|
Suv,
In the analysis I sent you p 19 there was an attempt to find out about 280 elements in nature, that can only happen when you have seven electron orbits with seven subshells. This was worked out also by Anton Hahnekamp, who also helped Guido with some calculations
Salome
Mohammed |
Jokoveltman
Member
Post Number: 48
Registered: 11-2009
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2010 - 12:09 am: |
|
Mohammed,
Would you mind sending me your analysis? I am very curious about this sort of thing as well. My email address is jokoveltman[at]gmail[dot]com.
Salome,
Tim |
Smukhuti
Member
Post Number: 392
Registered: 06-2009
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2010 - 12:44 am: |
|
Hello Mohammed,
Yes, I remember that. 7 comes to haunt us back. Isn't it? 
BTW, I have a couple of follow up comments on your comment on my comment on your analysis. Have been busy last couple months. Next month, I'll send them across.
Salome.
Suv
|
Mahigitam
Member
Post Number: 214
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2010 - 03:48 am: |
|
Contact Report 224, Thurday, July 7th, 1988
Billy: ...The Creation flakes, or rather the flakes that were created by the Creation and that formed in the empty space of the Universe, were hydrogen formations, in which all the building blocks or 280 elements of life as well as all matter and gases, etc., which were already created by the Creation, were existent....
What does Billy mean by "flakes"..could these be strings or quarks ?
What i understood from above could be either one of below two options
creation flakes(flakes that were created by the Creation) = hydrogen flakes = having the potential to further form 280 elements of life as well as all matter and gases, etc.
or
creation flakes(flakes that were created by the Creation) = hydrogen flakes + 280 elements of life + all matter + gases, etc.
In a time of universal deceit,telling the truth is a revolutionary act.- George Orwell
|
Indi
Moderator
Post Number: 502
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2010 - 09:17 am: |
|
Dear Mahigitam
A 'flake' is also known as a 'floc' and in the sciences in various fields is to do with the term 'flocculation'.
Here is a definition of flocculation:
flocculation is "a process of contact and adhesion whereby the particles of a dispersion form larger-size clusters." Flocculation is synonymous with agglomeration and coagulation
.
The term is used in physical chemistry, biology, and in civil engineering and the earth sciences:
In civil engineering, and in the earth sciences, flocculation is a condition in which clays, polymers or other small charged particles become attached and form a fragile structure, a floc. In dispersed clay slurries, flocculation occurs after mechanical agitation ceases and the dispersed clay platelets spontaneously form flocs because of attractions between negative face charges and positive edge charges.
In astronomy, different types of galaxies have been noted, one being a 'flocculent spiral galaxy', which exhibits patchiness and discontinuous spiral arms.
So, 'flakes' are 'flocs' which are formed from the process of flocculation, which itself is a natural process which forms woolly or lactic/milky cloudlike aggregations.
Cheese making, water purifying, galaxy formation etc........
It is my interpretation that the hydrogen formations contain the 280 building-block elements.
Robyn |
Smukhuti
Member
Post Number: 393
Registered: 06-2009
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2010 - 01:24 pm: |
|
Hi Robyn,
"It is my interpretation that the hydrogen formations contain the 280 building-block elements. "
Are you implying two hydrogen atoms can, under certain condition, combine their protons and form Helium for example???...and so on?
Salome.
Suv
|
J_rod7
Member
Post Number: 1302
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Friday, June 25, 2010 - 10:04 pm: |
|
******
Hello Suv,
From my understanding of Nuclear Physics and Astrophysics, is is the coalition of the vast hydrogen clouds into the birth of stars which begins the fusion process. Fusion inside the stars forms all the elements up to Iron and all the isotopes of the elements from Helium up to the Iron molecules.
These elements include (AMU + isotopes): ...
He 2,4-10,... Lithium 3,3-12,... Beryllium 4,6-14,
Boron 5,8-19,... Carbon 6,9-22,... Nitrogen 7,12-24,
Oxygen 8,13-26,... Fluorine 9,17-29,... Neon 10,17-32,
Sodium 11, 20-35,... Magnesium 12,20-34,... Aluminium 13,23-35,
Silicone 14,22-37,... Phosphorous 15,26-43,... Sulfur, 16,27-45,
Chlorine 17,31-47,... Argon 18,32-47,... Potassium 19,37-49,
Calcium 20,38-52,... Scandium 21,40-50,... Titanium 22,41-52,
Vanadium 23,46-54,... Chromium 24,46-56,... Manganese 25,50-58,
..and Iron 26,52-62
All of the elements higher than Iron are created when the star goes Nova (or Super-Nova in the case of heavy stars). When these stars explode the very high temperatures and pressures cause the fusion of these elements from Iron on up into the range of Ununbium 112,272-285 and Ununtrium 113,281(isotopes unknown). There are very rare (produced) fusion elements known up to Ununoctium 118, 293.
Beyond these are purely speculative and/or theoretical, as there have not been any examples produced in any known fusion reaction. Many of the isotopes of these elements are very unstable and will decay very quickly into "daughter" isotopes or elements. Some will undergo several steps down the scale of Atomic Mass Units (AMU) to reach stable forms.
As we do find the elements and isotopes in the range of 280 AMU, this is the most probable intent of the answer to Billy's question. Any greater detail in the answer would be superfluous to a non-scientist.
Peace
******
~~ TRUTH finds WISDOM finds LOVE finds PEACE -- Find What You Seek ~ Rod
|
Smukhuti
Member
Post Number: 394
Registered: 06-2009
| | Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2010 - 03:01 am: |
|
Hi Rod,
Now I think that was a stupid question mine. I remembered my physics lessons after reading your post.
I just finished reading an article which states that during the big-bang, only lighter elements (hydrogen, deuterium, helium, lithium and trace beryllium) where formed. Clouds of gases then cooled down, to form hydrogen molecules. Gravity compressed the molecules into a heated core - enough to start a fusion. Depending upon the mass of stars, elements up to iron are formed. In a supernova explosion, neutron capture reactions take place, leading to the formation of heavier elements.
IMO, there seem to be room for improvement in this hypothesis.
a) Why would big-bang only produce light elements? The energy of the big bank is unthinkably higher than that of even a supernova?
b) What about exploding supermassive black-holes? Why can't they produce heavier elements?
Salome.
Suv
|
J_rod7
Member
Post Number: 1303
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2010 - 05:38 am: |
|
******
Hi Suv,
The Energy of the 'big-bang' was at such high values that no elements could form. After several hundred-thousand years, the Energy became "stretched-out' enough that it became longer-range in frequencies, yet still in unimaginably high 'temperatures.' As the Universe was still expanding, the Frequencies dropped first into the range of Neutrino formation, then into the range of Photon formation. At this point, the entire Universe became filled with Light. Even though there were not yet any stars then, the light WAS the Universe. As the frequencies of the Photon range continued to decrease, it was only then that Electron and Proton formation appeared, which then resulted in Hydrogen formation. The rest is "History" as they say.
There has never been known of any black hole exploding yet. if one ever does, the extremely compressed Energy would light-up the Universe again. Once a black hole forms from a very heavy Star (greater than 10-Solar mass), Time ends (goes to nearly infinite values), and the black hole will endure to the end of the Universe.
Peace
******
~~ TRUTH finds WISDOM finds LOVE finds PEACE -- Find What You Seek ~ Rod
|
Thomas
Member
Post Number: 1083
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2010 - 06:49 am: |
|
> It appears Rod that you might be unfamiliar with, or at least forgetting, > the island of stability which even Earth science agrees exists. These > higher elements would not necessarily be found in or around normal star > systems (normal meaning similar to Sol in this case). |
Smukhuti
Member
Post Number: 395
Registered: 06-2009
| | Posted on Saturday, June 26, 2010 - 01:58 pm: |
|
Hi Rod,
The clue may be :
quote:Solar
Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 12:30 am:
Hi Billy
Could you please explain, what is the purpose and functions of black holes in the universe?
Thanks
Solar
Answer
They are there for "universal recycling". Black holes are the beginning and end of galaxies, suns, planets, etc. They are an important factor in the cycle of becoming, growing and passing away.
Black hole may have a finite life as some are beginning to suggest.
Read as reference: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v248/n5443/abs/248030a0.html
Note that the lifetime of a black hole given in the letter is subsequently higher than the lifetime of the Universe. But Hawkings may be wrong.
Not sure of the Plejaren take on this, but to me, finite life of black hole makes sense. IMO, when a galaxy ends its life, the supermassive black hole at the centre should take centre-stage in collecting all stars, planetary bodies and get stronger and stronger till the larger part of the mass of the galaxy would be absorbed by the black hole, and after a certain threshold should emit all or majority of its acquired mass.
Regarding big bang energy being too high value I would say that at some point of time, the conditions in the Universe must be just right for the heavier elements to form. They may have degraded as the Universe have cooled down.
But would be worthwhile to ask Billy as this is an interesting topic on which Billy has given some teasing clues.
Salome.
Suv
|
|
